From London to D.C., Bike-Sharing Is Safer Than Riding Your Own Bike

Bike-sharing users might be safer because they take fewer risks while riding. These two women trying out Boulder's new bike-sharing system don't look like daredevils. Photo: dgrinbergs via Flickr

People riding shared public bicycles appear to be involved in fewer traffic crashes and receive fewer injuries than people riding their personal bicycles. In cities from Paris and London to Washington, D.C. and Mexico City, something about riding a shared bicycle appears to make cycling safer.

Paris’s Vélib’ is perhaps the most iconic bike-sharing system in the world. Launched in 2007 with 20,000 bikes, its widespread popularity not only transformed how Parisians traveled across their city but set off an explosion of new bike-sharing systems worldwide. With a few years of practice at this point, the Parisian experience is particularly telling.

“The accident rate is lower on a Vélib’ than on ‘normal’ bikes,” a spokesperson for the office of Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoë told Streetsblog. In 2009, the most recent year for which data is available, Vélib’ riders were responsible for one-third of all bike trips in Paris but were involved in only one-fourth of all traffic crashes involving a bicycle.

The numbers are if anything more striking in London, where the Barclays Cycle Hire system — or “Boris Bikes,” to borrow the phrase locals have adopted in honor of their mayor, Boris Johnson — opened at the end of last July. Though the London government didn’t track the relevant safety stats of bike-share users compared to other cyclists, they provided us with the data to do some back-of-the-envelope calculations.

So far, after 4.5 million trips, no bike-sharing user in London has been seriously injured or killed in a traffic crash, according to Transport for London. Only 10 bike-sharing users were injured at all in the first 1.6 million trips on the system, a statistic that was compiled earlier. A spokesperson also told Streetsblog that they estimate that half a million bike trips take place across London each day, 20,000 of which are on Boris Bikes. Finally, during 2010, 10 people were killed, 457 seriously injured and 3,540 non-seriously injured while cycling in London.

Crunching those numbers, no people were seriously injured or killed on the first 4.5 million trips on Boris Bikes, while about 12 people are injured for every 4.5 million trips on personal bikes. And over 1.6 million trips, ten bike-sharing users received non-serious injuries, compared to an average of 35 such injuries for the same number of trips on personal bikes.

Stateside, transportation officials are seeing the same effect.

Chris Holben, the project manager for Washington D.C.’s Capital Bikeshare system, told the Boston Globe in May that bike-sharing users had a much safer rate of crashes than bike owners. He told Streetsblog that his observation was merely anecdotal, but it turns out that his instincts are likely correct.

In its first seven months of operation, Capital Bikeshare users made 330,000 trips. In that time, seven crashes of any kind were reported, and none involved serious injuries. In comparison, there were 338 cyclist injuries and fatalities overall in 2010, according to the District Department of Transportation, with an estimated 28,400 trips per weekday, 5,000 of which take place on a Capital Bikeshare bikes.

So while only seven bike-sharing riders were injured in 330,000 trips, on average, 13 people riding personal bikes are injured over the same number of trips. And bike-sharing riders suffered no serious injuries, while riders using their own bikes suffered injuries that were sometimes serious or even fatal.

In other systems, apples-to-apples comparisons with personal bike riders are impossible, but extremely low injury rates among bike-sharing riders still stand out.

In Mexico City, for example, only three ECOBICI riders have required a trip to the hospital after a traffic crash in the 1.6 million trips taken so far. That’s an impressive safety record in a city known for its dangerous traffic. Mexico City does not, however, compile the necessary data to accurately compare the ECOBICI safety rate with that of other cyclists, said a representative of the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, which provided technical assistance on the city’s bike-sharing program.

Similarly, Minneapolis’s NiceRide system reported “no significant accidents or major injuries” in its first year of operation. In that time, Minnesotans took 37,000 NiceRide trips.

This is encouraging news for cities like New York that are eyeing bike-sharing systems of their own. Some have worried that bike-sharing would bring a flood of inexperienced new cyclists onto roads that are too dangerous, but if New York’s experience is anything like that of its peers, cycling will be safer overall once shared bikes are added to the mix.

Bike-sharing users are struck and injured less often than people on their personal bikes. One theory is that they're more likely to stick to safe routes like this one in London. Photo: d1v1d via Flickr

For now, we can only speculate as to the reasons for this phenomenon. Streetsblog spoke with two experts on road safety, Professors Norman Garrick of the University of Connecticut and Ian Walker of the University of Bath. Each offered a number of possible explanations for the discrepancy in safety numbers.

“It’s shorter trips, maybe,” proposed Garrick. If bike-sharing users are generally taking trips of less than thirty minutes so as to avoid additional fees, each trip might be fewer miles, leading to a lower crash rate per trip.

Walker hypothesized that bike-sharing users might be less experienced riders than those who own their own bike. “They therefore avoid mixing with traffic as much as regular riders, and ride slower, and so have fewer serious collisions,” he theorized. That might be easier to achieve if bike-sharing stations are sited near bike lanes, added Garrick.

Garrick said that even apart from experience in cycling, people who have avoided cycling until bike-sharing presents them with the option might be, by their nature, less tolerant of risk and stick to safer cycling behavior. “It could be that they’re more cautious people.”

Or the other case may be true, said Walker — bike-share users could be more dedicated cyclists with an above-average skill level. “Most people don’t hire bikes from such a scheme, suggesting that the people who do hire from them might be those with a greater than average interest in cycling.” That could be especially true of the tourists taking them out, who might not have brought their own bike along with them.

The physical qualities of the shared bikes themselves might be responsible for their increased safety. “They are slower and they are very visible,” said Garrick.

That visibility might help motorists not only notice the bike-sharing user, but respect her as well, said Walker. “I suspect they are also, in most people’s minds, a sign of a novice or occasional cyclist. As such, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if drivers took more care around people using them than they do around ‘professional’ looking cyclists.” Walker’s own research has shown that drivers passed cyclists more closely if they were wearing helmets or appeared to be male.

Significantly more research will be needed to determine which combination of these factors actually explains the better safety record of bike-sharing users. But in the meantime, cities with bike-sharing systems on the horizon should be pleased to hear that the program will likely be a boon for street safety.

Noah Kazis
joined Streetsblog as a New York City reporter at the start of 2010. When he was a kid, he collected subway paraphernalia in a Vignelli-map shoebox.

“Even apart from experience in cycling, people who have avoided cycling until bike-sharing presents them with the option might be, by their nature, less tolerant of risk and stick to safer cycling behavior.”

That’s it, in my view. The daredevils blowing lights and weaving through pedestrians at 20 mph are already out there. It’s a different population than those running errands or going to work.

guest

Instead of publishing this here, maybe you should have sold this piece to the NY Times as an example of a story on bike share with actual research. Good angle and nice work.

Jesse Smith

Interesting (or perhaps revealing?) given that helmet use on shared bikes is probably much lower by the very nature of bike-sharing systems.

I agree that the type of people who are using bike sharing systems are likely to be more conservative on average than the larger and more diverse population riding their own bikes. There is also the nature of the bikes, with most bike share bikes being an upright Dutch-style of bicycle rather than the aggressive posture and speed of a road bike. I think road bikes are easier to crash (and the consequences more severe) than an upright transportation bike, and there’s also the driver response alluded to by Walker. In my own experience, I am convinced drivers give me noticeably more room when I’m riding my upright English roadster without a helmet than when I ride my mountain bike hybrid with helmet and mirror. And I think it would be even worse if I were on a racing bike wearing a lycra jersey and shorts.

http://karenlynnallen.blogspot.com/ Karen Lynn Allen

“The physical qualities of the shared bikes themselves might be
responsible for their increased safety. ‘They are slower and they are
very visible,’ said Garrick.”

While I agree that people who use bikeshare programs are less likely to be daredevils, the weight of the bicycle and the upright design forces slower speeds and increases visibility, factors that I would guess are the most important in decreasing accident rates. But obviously there needs to be real research done to figure out causation. In any event, these results are promising.

MFS

What if bike share users are taking less trips at night because they take transit home? That would explain a lot.

I agree with you Karen — the fact that these bikes are upright and often have thicker tires than the normal ten speed commute bike with drop bars and racing-thickness tires is likely to be a contributing factor. This is a personal bias of mine, I have to admit, but it really is irritating to be told to wear a helmet all the time when I ride an upright, relatively slow bike with 1.85″ thick tires by folks who are stretched out with reduced visibility and super thin tires. I’m not sure how the helmet is the be-all-and-end-all safety feature given such other factors.

Another likely factor is that the users of hire-bikes are more likely to be adults, whereas cycle use overall includes the trips made by children. Children have a higher injury rate than adults, whether a pedsetrians or as cyclists.

Roger Geffen
CTC, the UK national cyclists’ organisation

Anonymous

Thank goodness there is some real journalism going on around this stuff.

http://twitter.com/HaraldKliems Harald Kliems

Very interesting material! I’m wondering, though, if what’s going on has to do with the used metric of “accidents per trips.” By design a trip by bike-share on average is going to be shorter than a trip with your own bike, and therefore the better metric would be accidents per miles ridden. As far as I know at least Montreal Bixi tracks your distance. Or, if distance data is not available you could use accidents per hours of exposure and see if the outcome is the same. (Maybe I’m wrong about the trip length — feel free to correct me.)

There also something wrong about the DC numbers:

In its first seven months of operation, Capital Bikeshare users made
330,000 trips. In that time, seven crashes of any kind were reported,
and none involved serious injuries. In comparison, there were 338
cyclist injuries and fatalities overall in 2010, according to the
District Department of Transportation, with an estimated 28,400 trips
per weekday, 5,000 of which take place on a Capital Bikeshare bikes.

So you have 330 000 trips over 7 months. And then there’s the statement that there are 5000 bikeshare trips per weekday. So 5000 trips * 5 days * 4 weeks * 7 months = 700 000. And not the actual 330 000. And that doesn’t even include the weekends. So one of those numbers must be wrong, which probably also means that the overall calculation is wrong. The weekend vs. weekdays aspect and the locations where people ride might be another interesting potential explanation to look at.

http://www.stevevance.net/planning Steven Vance

Don’t all bike sharing bikes (at least for the cities mentioned) have front and rear lights?

This could contribute to the increased safety of people riding bike-share bikes. Many people ride without lights and this decreases the chances they will be seen and could increase their chance of being involved in a crash.

Ed Ravin

The slow bikes and the design of the bikes (comfort-style, relatively fat tires, suspension in some cases) is probably a big factor. Here are some other possible factors:

Bike-share users know they are on a rented bike, so they have extra incentive to be more careful.

Bike-share users have credit cards or made other pregistration efforts – these kinds of people may drive more responsibly than people without credit cards or the wherewithal to open a bike-share account.

If the bike-share bikes have lights, that would also increase their safety when used at night compared to all the people who ride at night without lights.

Joe R.

I would think one big factor is financial. You want to return the bike undamaged or you’ll be liable for repair/replacement. While that’s also true if you’re riding your own bike, the maximum downside risk is the cost of repairing/replacing only one bike. If you use bike- share regularly, it’s conceiveable you could be on the hook for multiple damaged bikes if you ride recklessly.

And yes, the physical design of the bikes (i.e. most are clunkers for lack of a better word) means it’s harder (but not impossible) to ride dangerously. You can ride recklessly without riding fast. The converse is true also.

Accidents per mile might be a more meaningful statistic here than accidents per trip. A lot of bike-share trips are only a mile or two. That could easily skew the numbers compared to accidents per trip on one’s own set of wheels. Every time I mount my bike, I’m going at least 10 miles (that’s on a very bad day). 15 to 25 is more typical. That’s easily equal to a dozen bike-share trips.

Anonymous

I would like to see the accident statistics for the tourist bike rental outfits in San Francisco.

MR

Transportation Alternatives blames much of the cycling disorder in Central Park on the rental outfits. I wonder what makes New York so much different.

http://sustainablemonkeys.blogspot.com/ Suzanne

How can bike sharing be safer when all those daredevils are riding HELMET-LESS!!!!

So that means the majority of accidents are the cyclists’ fault because they’re “daredevils,” go to fast, and have insufficient visibility? That’s probably not what you wanted to say, but it certainly sounds like victim-blaming to me. We should be very careful with our language or soon we’ll have 5 mph speed limits on bike lanes, “just for your own protection!”

http://karenlynnallen.blogspot.com/ Karen Lynn Allen

My comments were about the causes of accidents, not blame. Since in my observation whenever there is a bicycle accident the bicyclist suffers pain, injury and even death, who is to “blame” is far less relevant than avoiding the accident in the first place. What good is it if the car driver is “to blame” if you end up dead? (Especially since in the US charges tend not to be filed against a driver unless he/she is proven drunk.)

So, yes, I do mean to say that riding at a less-than-breakneck speed means you’re less likely to hit that car door flung open in front of you or that kid who jumps off the sidewalk in your path or that nasty pothole. Now none of these things are the bicyclist’s fault, and yet riding 10-12 mph means they probably won’t cause an accident while at hell-for-leather 25 mph they just might. The same is true of driving. Going more slowly means you have more time to react to obstacles and unforeseen circumstances. In addition, if you hit someone while driving a car at 20 mph (whether it is your fault or not) you are much, much less likely to kill that person than if you’re traveling at 40 mph, a good reason to lower car speeds in congested urban areas.

Yes, I do mean to say that anyone riding an upright bicycle is more visible than someone riding bent over. They just are. And it is also true that at night, people with lights are more visible than those without. They just are. Is this victim blaming or acknowledging reality? I don’t wear a reflective vest when I ride, but even though I think bicycling should be safe enough that no one should need to wear a reflective vest, I have eyes in my head and can see that given the sorry state of our bicycle infrastructure, wearing a reflective vest likely increases the visibility and safety of those who do.

And yes, I do mean to say that those who take obvious risks as they ride are more likely to get injured or killed. In San Francisco I see a subset of people on bikes do absolutely crazy, astonishing things that make my jaw drop. I can only assume they have a death wish. I also see some people in cars do crazy, astounding things that make me wish someone would take away their car keys forever. Perhaps the only difference in this irresponsible behavior is that with a bike you’re likely to kill only yourself whereas with a car you’re likely to kill someone else.

Now, it is very true that given the appalling lack of bicycle infrastructure in the US and the irresponsible and/or ignorant car drivers out there that riding a bicycle responsibly, visibly, and in control does not make you safe from injury and death. There is much we need to do to increase safety for bicyclists in this country, and I think the Danish system that presumes a car driver is at fault (and holds them accountable!) in a car/bicycle altercation unless proven otherwise is a good idea. But to pretend that it makes no difference at what speed we travel, how visible we are, or what risks we take seems absurd to me. Certainly the more bicyclists we get on the roads, the more car drivers will be aware of bicyclists and look out for them, and the more the accident rate will fall for all us. But don’t be surprised if the more sedate and cautious among us still have a lower accident rate than the speedy daredevils.

Anonymous

I find myself riding more cautiously when I’m not wearing a helmet.

http://sustainablemonkeys.blogspot.com/ Suzanne

Exactamundo.

I don’t wear a helmet while walking around the city either, despite the fact that something like 300 people are killed every year. I don’t ride like I’m in the Deathmatch 2000, neither do I drive like I’m in the Deathmatch 2000. If I ever do either I’ll be sure to wear safety gear then.

http://sustainablemonkeys.blogspot.com/ Suzanne

Really?

I bet they’re a different kind of rental – probably renting racing bikes to recreational riders as opposed to transportation to guys in suits and women in skirts and heels.

James Hanley

It’s also possible that bike-share riders are just different from “regular” bike riders, rather than being a subset of them. So I have to quibble with the title. Because the data are at the aggregate level, showing only a smaller number of accidents among bike share users than regular bike riders (and that’s generously assuming the accidents-per-trip metric is meaningful–like others here I think an accidents per mile metric would be far more powerful), but the title refers to an individual-level measure. That’s known as the ecological fallacy, when you make conclusions about individuals based on group-level characteristics.

That’s not to say the research isn’t interesting and relevant, though. I hope they continue it and dig in deeper to be able to explain the causes.

Joe R.

I kind of take issue with the whole speed thing. The problem isn’t speed perse, but speed excessive for the conditions. Flying down a crowded street at 25 mph on a bike is excessive speed for the conditions. On the flip side, going down a hill at 45 mph on an arterial with good visibility, no chance of pedestrians you can’t see darting in front of you, isn’t. The only time speed might become “excessive” in that scenario is when you start to exceed the design limits of whatever type of bicycle you’re on. I personally start to feel a little squeamish the very rare times I’m on the high side of 50 mph because I’m approaching the limits of where I can safely stop within my visibility. Blowouts at high speeds were an additional concern also but not since I’ve been using airless tires.

Anyway, the problem as I see it is inexperienced cyclists pushing their bikes well past speeds they can safely handle. Generally this happens on downgrades because novice cyclists just aren’t yet strong enough to go fast on the level. Anyone who can hold 25 mph on level streets has been cycling long enough to develop a sense of where they can go fast, and where they can’t. Those who don’t follow that sixth sense generally don’t have a long career biking. Bike handling skills and the type of bike play a huge role also. A nimble bike with good brakes might be safer at 20 mph than one of those upright clunkers at 12 mph. I’ve been riding fast for over 3 decades. I haven’t been in a fall of any kind for at least the last decade (the exact date on my last fall escapes me other than I know it was before the 9/11 attacks). I’ve never had anything beyond road rash the few times I’ve fallen. And 100% of my falls were due to potholes. Eventually I learned to spot any kind of pothole, even the “sneaky” ones which look small until you’re almost on top of them, well in advance.

In short then, I’m not seeing much reason to ride 10-12 mph all the time because that’s way too limiting. It just makes long trips on a bike impractical, and it really isn’t necessary for safety. Just ride appropriately for conditions. That might indeed mean 10 or 12 on a few crowded streets, but much of the time you can go as fast as your legs can carry you. The key is always giving yourself an out. Stay out of the door zone, and you don’t have to worry about stopping in time to avoid a door (even at 10 mph sometimes you just can’t). Don’t depend upon drivers seeing you in order to be safe. I ride as if I’m invisible. I do have lights since I ride 100% of the time after dark, but I don’t depend upon them to help drivers see me. It’s nice when I notice motorists giving me a little room when they do see me, but the way I ride, I would be just fine if they didn’t see me at all. I always have an out, which is basically a contingency plan in case someone doesn’t do what they’re supposed to do. For example, I never ride alongside cars approaching intersections just in case one of them decides to turn right. Instead, I keep at least 30 feet behind them, to allow myself room to stop or manuever round them should they decide to turn without warning. That’s the general concept here-keep a cushion of space around you. When traffic becomes so heavy you can’t keep a 30 or 40 foot cushion, then that’s the time you slow down a bit. This idea has worked very well for me for the last 33 years.

Joe R.

No helmet here, either. When you start reading a lot of the stuff pro and con, they’re just not the panacea they’re made out to be. I noticed in the great cycling countries like the Netherlands you hardly see anyone wearing helmets (see the video in this article-http://hembrow.blogspot.com/search/label/cycle%20paths). Biking should be just like walking-you do it in whatever clothes you wear. I would wear a helmet though if I engaged in offroad cycling where I’m likely to fall and hit my head no matter how cautious I am. That really isn’t my cup of tea though. I’m a fast road rider type (no lycra, just regular street clothing).

Joe R.

No helmet here, either. When you start reading a lot of the stuff pro and con, they’re just not the panacea they’re made out to be. I noticed in the great cycling countries like the Netherlands you hardly see anyone wearing helmets (see the video in this article-http://hembrow.blogspot.com/search/label/cycle%20paths). Biking should be just like walking-you do it in whatever clothes you wear. I would wear a helmet though if I engaged in offroad cycling where I’m likely to fall and hit my head no matter how cautious I am. That really isn’t my cup of tea though. I’m a fast road rider type (no lycra, just regular street clothing).

Anonymous

I’d suspect that the type of journey involved is also relevent. London’s bike share covers a small, very congested, area – where traffic speeds are normally very low (except for a few bits of over engineered dual carrageway).

Londons regular cyclists are more likely to commute in from Zone 2 and 3, where the roads become faster and there is less cycling infrastructure. We’re also more likely to cycle in bad weather, with the consequent risks, and more likely to stay on the road (while I see many Borisbikers using the pavement).

Great post – interesting questions.

Kyleg

Harald,

I think the inconsistency you point out in the 5,000 trips number is that the system NOW operates at 5,000 trips per day. That number has ramped up every month since the system opened. Back in January and February there were only around 1,000-1,500 trips per day.

http://opusthepoet.wordpress.com/ Opus the Poet

Not a factor, the comparison was done on a per-trip basis. Hire or share bikes have a lower collision rate on a per-trip basis than personal bikes. My take is people don’t want to get charged for the damages to the share-bike so they ride more defensively.

http://twitter.com/HaraldKliems Harald Kliems

Kyleg, that makes sense. But how Noah arrived at the comparative figures for the accidents per trip is still unclear. If the system operates at 5k trips/day /now/, then you can’t use that as the basis for comparison because during the winter months the number is probably going to go down again. Well, let’s hope people will continue to study this phenomenon.

http://twitter.com/HaraldKliems Harald Kliems

Kyleg, that makes sense. But how Noah arrived at the comparative figures for the accidents per trip is still unclear. If the system operates at 5k trips/day /now/, then you can’t use that as the basis for comparison because during the winter months the number is probably going to go down again. Well, let’s hope people will continue to study this phenomenon.

Peter Jacobsen

Yes, and intoxicated cyclists are another higher injury group who would likely not be on a hire-bike.

WJF

I think MFS’ point is valid. Even though the measure is “per trip,” not all trips are equally safe. A trip at night may be more dangerous than a trip during the daytime, and if there is a correlation between bike-share users taking fewer night trips, it could account for some of the difference.

http://janheine.wordpress.com/ Jan Heine

One problem is how you count the number of trips. On the bikeshare, it’s easy (electronic), but I suspect that bicycle trips on private bikes may be underreported. Add the differences in trip length, and you realize that getting good rates of accidents per mile ridden (the only useful statistic) is very difficult.

That said, it is encouraging that the bike share systems are safe. Whether they are safer than private bikes or not is besides the point.

Frank Krygowski

Given the numbers, the relative safety (bike share vs. private bike) is moot. For example, the DC figures quoted were 7 bike share, vs. 13 private, injuries in 330,000 trips. No matter which type of bike you’re on, the risk of injury is tiny.

Let’s also note that the vast majority of ER visits by bicyclists (which is what’s usually counted as “injuries” in such data) are for minor injuries, AIS #1. Road rash dominates. It’s not fun, but it’s hardly life-threatening.

Bicycling is NOT very dangerous. Let’s stop pretending it is, please.

http://www.decoralamerica.com decorative coating

That sounds great…. Love the concept of shared bicycles.
Will now definitely opt for public or shared bicycle if its much safer!

Mitch Vars

Just a note: Nice Ride Minnesota recorded just over 100,000 trips in it’s first year with no significant accidents or major injuries – not the 37K reported above. We’re now in our second season and just passed the 100,000 trip mark this week with no reports of significant injury.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Diego-Canales/510920236 Diego Canales

I would come up with a different factor influencing lower incidence among bike-sharing users, which would have to do with a spatial component. As we know much of the bike-sharing systems along the world are somehow clustered, at least this is the case for Mexico City, which is mentioned in the article. Bike-sharing users commonly bike inside the perimtetter where the bike-sharing locations are, which inherently have better biking characteristics than parts of the city where there is no bike-sharing (otherwise these areas would not have been chosen to host them). These characteristics can range from denser neighborhoods, to less hilly streets (less probabilities of high speeds), or traffic calmed streets for car speeds.

Also, areas where bike-share users bike do have much higher rates of bike usage compared to the rest of the city, making drivers in those areas more cautious, thus the point that critical mass does work. In addition, as in the example of Mexico City, many of drivers within the bike-sharing system, are also dwellers in the neighborhood, thus having higher probabilities of bike-sharing usage, and being more aware of these people that ride their bikes. Of course, this is under the hypothesis that cars have been involved in most of the accidents.
So the question is whether bike-sharing users share common characteristics that make them less prone to accidents or is it the urban environment where the bikes-haring stations are located that influence safety?The statistics could give a better picture, if the bike-own related accidents locations would be plotted and run some spatial statistics to figure out whether these are spatially correlated, or clustered (which would show more dangerous areas of the city), and also compare them with the accident locations of the bike-sharing users. As someone pointed out, there is also a flaw in the comparisons, as we are comparing two different things, one are bike trips, where “methodologically” speaking bikes suffer the accidents, not the people (of course this is figuratively) in the bike-sharing system and individual bikers which due to higher numbers of bike use, are more prone to accidents.

Joe

Correlation does not equal causation. It all comes down to the riders themselves, and owners just happen to be more risky/aggressive, while people attracted to bike shares happen to be more cautious. There is no reason why a regular bicyclist would suddenly become safer if they rode a shared bike instead of their own.